• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Conspiracies Epstein Dies in Custody - Alleged Suicide, Some Speculate it was a Hit Job

JGrimez said:
The Trump-haters don't realize that this has a far greater potential to hurt Trump's opponents.
Click to expand...

There is the flyby MSM headlines connecting Trump and Epstein. I personally am amused at the resurfacing of a video from what, 1992? Where Trump and Epstein are together and the narrator makes a shit ton of assumptions about what they are saying.

However, it is fact that Clinton was in a lot more contact and more frequently with Epstein, though Clinton's name keeps being omitted from these stories. Some of those news stories is occasionally the slightest hint that Nader is quite close to someone Slick Willy. Maybe even a blurb that he tried to broker ME deals for this almost unnamed man. It is odd how that WJC name keeps disappearing from Nader articles much like it does with respect to Epstein. Open Secrets searches will let you know who they gave money too though. Start there. It should help you determine who is REALLY close to and which party he REALLY serves.

Keep in mind Nader actually PLEAD GUILTY to this crime already in another country. Wonder what they want from another pedofile heavily associated with WJC?

From a case being prosecuted by the NY Public Corruption Unit. Sound familiar?

MSM wants you to believe it's Trump. That is impossible and they know it bc if it were Trump, or current admin officials, they'd need a special counsel. I don't know who will be at the end of the day, but I know that Pelosi seems to know and said this will take out some of "our faves". I don't know why she would say that.
 
alasdairm said:
trump has accused hillary of all sorts of crimes. lock her up!

accused means fuck all?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Very silly comparison, because we have direct evidence of Clinton mishandling classified information and destroying evidence. That would be the equivalent of having video evidence of Trump shtooping an underage sheila - and then having his FBI director come out and say "we're not going to recommend charges against Mr Trump as no reasonable prosecutor would take this case".
 
Exactly, you've got it. Accusations without evidence mean fuck all. If you've got evidence then you can actually know for yourself if an accusation is credible (if you choose to).

Like for eg, no evidence that Trump ever colluded with Russians to interfere with the results of a US election.
 
Plenty of evidence for obstruction of justice though. Months ago you admitted that you didn't read the Mueller report, and didn't intend to. If you had you would realize that your claim there is no evidence of anything in there is bogus. There's a whole section about Russia's election interference through social media, the $4,700 figure is some shit thrown around, I'm not sure the origination, but the Mueller report states that Russia spent $1.2 million per month on Facebook ads and also talks about the troll farms used to help inflame divisions in the population and spread false information. It outlines numerous scenarios where trump and his administration acted in sketchy ways, and numerous ways in which they at least unwittingly played into Russia's hand. There are also a lot of redacted sections so you have to consider that as well. He did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. There are instances of Trump using campaign finances in ways that break the law. Mueller's job is not to indict him, and the DOJ has likely decided they can't indict (or don't want to indict) a sitting president. Choosing to ignore the report and mischaracterize it is a choice you've made, but it doesn't change what's in the report.

There is, in fact, evidence against Trump and against Russia. If he didn't purposely collude, he still acted in ways I very much disagree with that were sketchy, and which played into Russia's goals.

And before you reply, I think Hillary is a crook too. That has nothing to do with Trump.

You mention that you voted for Obama, believing in his "change" message, and were disappointed. You're just falling for another bullshit artist right now and full-scale ignoring the evidence you don't want to see.
 
Xorkoth said:
Plenty of evidence for obstruction of justice though. Months ago you admitted that you didn't read the Mueller report, and didn't intend to. If you had you would realize that your claim there is no evidence of anything in there is bogus. There's a whole section about Russia's election interference through social media, the $4,700 figure is some shit thrown around, I'm not sure the origination, but the Mueller report states that Russia spent $1.2 million per month on Facebook ads and also talks about the troll farms used to help inflame divisions in the population and spread false information. It outlines numerous scenarios where trump and his administration acted in sketchy ways, and numerous ways in which they at least unwittingly played into Russia's hand. There are also a lot of redacted sections so you have to consider that as well. He did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. There are instances of Trump using campaign finances in ways that break the law. Mueller's job is not to indict him, and the DOJ has likely decided they can't indict (or don't want to indict) a sitting president. Choosing to ignore the report and mischaracterize it is a choice you've made, but it doesn't change what's in the report.

There is, in fact, evidence against Trump and against Russia. If he didn't purposely collude, he still acted in ways I very much disagree with that were sketchy, and which played into Russia's goals.

And before you reply, I think Hillary is a crook too. That has nothing to do with Trump.

You mention that you voted for Obama, believing in his "change" message, and were disappointed. You're just falling for another bullshit artist right now and full-scale ignoring the evidence you don't want to see.
Click to expand...
Wouldnt the majority of the Democratic Party Politicians and news organizations be guilty of defamation? This is a legit question btw lol

Defamation refers to a "false statement communicated to a third-party, which ultimately causes damage or harm to a person’s reputation."

  • Libel: the written communication of a false assertion of fact, which subsequently causes harm to another person’s reputation.
  • Slander: the oral communication of a false assertion of fact, which subsequently causes harm to another person’s reputation.
 
By the same token, wouldn't Trump and Republicans be guilty of the same in regards to both Hillary and Obama? He spent years saying all kinds of shit about Obama during Obama's presidency, and never shuts up about Hillary.

I think the answer is no, when dealing with politicians and political races, slander/smear campaigns happen all the time. Most political ads anymore aren't even about the candidate they're for, they're about how the opposing candidate is a terrible choice.

Anyway this doesn't really respond to the post of mine you quoted. I'm saying there IS evidence that Trump acted inappropriately, even illegally (in terms of campaign finance stuff). Also evidence of Russia significantly attempting to influence US politics. The evidence is right there in the report. I mentioned it in response to Grimez saying this:

JGrimez said:
Accusations without evidence mean fuck all. If you've got evidence then you can actually know for yourself if an accusation is credible (if you choose to).
Click to expand...

Because the implication was that anyone criticizing Trump has no evidence to back up the criticisms, which I find to be an absurd statement. Actually my main criticisms of Trump involve actual policy decisions he has implemented,, and appointments he's made to important positions rather than the stuff in the Mueller report, which aren't even things anyone can debate are real or not because they're are currently happening and a matter of public record.

The most important takeaway from the Mueller report, IMO, is the extent of Russia's active campaign to destabilize our political system. Regardless of whether Trump was complicit or not, this sudden new narrative from some on the right that Russia is so benevolent and is our ally now is alarming, especially in the face of evidence to the contrary. Russia (and China) are both seizing the opportunity they have right now to definitively take over our role as world economic leaders and decision makers.
 
Xorkoth said:
Plenty of evidence for obstruction of justice though. Months ago you admitted that you didn't read the Mueller report, and didn't intend to. If you had you would realize that your claim there is no evidence of anything in there is bogus. There's a whole section about Russia's election interference through social media, the $4,700 figure is some shit thrown around, I'm not sure the origination, but the Mueller report states that Russia spent $1.2 million per month on Facebook ads and also talks about the troll farms used to help inflame divisions in the population and spread false information. It outlines numerous scenarios where trump and his administration acted in sketchy ways, and numerous ways in which they at least unwittingly played into Russia's hand. There are also a lot of redacted sections so you have to consider that as well. He did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. There are instances of Trump using campaign finances in ways that break the law. Mueller's job is not to indict him, and the DOJ has likely decided they can't indict (or don't want to indict) a sitting president. Choosing to ignore the report and mischaracterize it is a choice you've made, but it doesn't change what's in the report.

There is, in fact, evidence against Trump and against Russia. If he didn't purposely collude, he still acted in ways I very much disagree with that were sketchy, and which played into Russia's goals.

And before you reply, I think Hillary is a crook too. That has nothing to do with Trump.

You mention that you voted for Obama, believing in his "change" message, and were disappointed. You're just falling for another bullshit artist right now and full-scale ignoring the evidence you don't want to see.
Click to expand...

So you think it's ok to charge something with obstruction of justice now that we've discovered that the accusations were mostly unfounded political attacks? You've shifted the goalposts quite a bit here compared to the avalanche of all the original claims. For eg if you think it's more important to charge Trump with obstruction of justice than it is to investigate the abuse of the FISA courts, then you may an irrational and/or uninformed Trump hater.

Russians interfering in elections was nothing new to people who really understand the game. Just like the US getting involved in the coup in Ukraine to hurt Russia wasn't a massive surprise. The US is the biggest culprit of foreign election interference and has been for a long time. The people that are surprised and allegedly outraged regarding Russia's actions here, I feel are just simply trying to save face since this whole Russia investigation was built up and promoted for so long by the mainstream media..

And that was Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifying in front of Congress that admitted the only proof they had of Russians buying FB ads was $4,700 worth

In comparison, the Clinton campaign spent $1.2 billion which included millions for online trolls.
 
JG - thanks for the video to back up the statement.

= = = =

Seems overall we're taking the topic (Epstein) a bit off topic for things covered better in other threads. Shall we focus a bit here? That's not aimed at just JG, but all of us (myself included).
 
(The title of this thread is misleading)

So Epstein has been charged with: one count of "sex trafficking" and one count of "sex-trafficking CONSPIRACY".

So is talking about this case a conspiracy theory?
 
The title reminds me of a doc of clinton crhonicles or something.
talk about cocaine parties with underage girls... ha had the whole state of arkansas in his pocket.
fuckin creeps... goes with the job i guess. to be fair it was the time of cocaine but this shit happens within any era/age.
never even entertained the idea of being a politician, lawyer or law enforcement. you know whats coming so....
sorry, corrupt, creepy, psychoctic, sociopathic, exploitative, lying, cheating, raping, killing, CORRUPT, dirty, "evil", doomed fucking cockroaces are not fit to be a leader in any sense of the word, IMO: Only for others of their ilk. All of them sleep in the same bed... all of them have fleas and other parasites.
Gotta get the wife to neurologist... will go mobile inna bit. Will be eating bars and browsing bluelight to help contain the beast while dealing with the "others" today.
Love always,
Ptah
 
Captain.Heroin said:
To be objective tathra warned me to not use all caps as postbait and I've abstained; I think I did an OK job.
Click to expand...

Ha! Yeah, all caps would have been clickbait material. No, what we have issue with is indicating it's "Trumps friend" when we've provided ample evidence Trump has nearly zilch to do with the guy, and others (-cough-CLINTON-cough-) are much closer to the pedophile. If anything, simply dropping anyone else's name but Epstein from the title would have been objective and not seeking to incite one group or another.
 
if JG started the thread with "Clinton's friend" I wouldn't have objected really I mean I'm not a Big Fan of Bill imo

I guess it is "charged" but Trump said many good things about Epstein over the years, including comments to the effect of "he's into really young women"..... :\
 
^which was exposing him to the public as someone that likes young women. As I said (and which is obvious), pedo buddies covering for their friends do not say things like that in public.

I wouldn't have titled the thread "Clinton's friend" and if I did the title would have been changed (I'm only allowed to discuss the Clintons in the Clinton thread). I had one of my threads re-titled (and temporarily closed!) because I wrote (factually) that there was an attempted coup against Trump (which I've seen liberal media confirm, even using that word).
 
If Epstein raped less women/girls as a result of Trump's comments I would be eternally grateful, I just don't think there's any connection. If that is what indeed tipped the investigators' hands I am grateful.

CEP Mods can weigh in on a title change and I'm all for whatever they decide is best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top